Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bookshelf with stuff.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
this photo is a derivative work of a fictional character Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep I judged it to be De minimis. It's like 5% of the picture that is showing Donald Duck. --MGA73 (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)- Note that about two points 1/ is it incidental? 2/ does it pass the test "will we notice that the object be removed from the image". The answer is of course no for the both points, i.e. it is very unlikely that someone would have took that photo without the head of Donald depicted in it. It is obvious that the Donald head is the main subject, it is also obvious that we will notice if it is removed, and furthermore the photo would have (IMO) not a single EV without that head. That makes the head the main subjet and purpose of that photo. For those reasons De minimis seems inappropriate to me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- A similar discussion is raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jumbobøger.jpg. The books ("Jumbobog") is a comic with adventures from en:Donald Duck universe. The books to the left of Donald is also comics from the Donald Duck universe. Those books are however not as famous in Denmark as "Jumbobøger".
- Originally the books had a text like "1. Onkel Joakims Trillioner" and "10. Kvikke Mickey" (PD-ineligible). Later they added drawings like Donald on the back of the book. So if someone want to illustrate the books the face of Donald is not important. I could go take a photo of some of the other books to illustrate the exact same. But then there would be the face of Mickey or Pluto or another drawing from the universe. I't is a bit like taking photos of Category:Walt Disney World Resort. It is hard to avoid copyrighted characters.
- If you look at Commons:De_minimis#France then it has been decided that File:Louvre_at_night_centered.jpg is okay. You could make the same point as you did above: "it is also obvious that we will notice if it is removed" (see result at File:Louvre at night centered censored.jpg). At least I would notice. --MGA73 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that we should take France as exemple, fisrty and especially because we don't talk about french cases.. Furthermore French justice is able to say all and its opposite, e.g. this image is not ok just because of the small text above the door, that the majority of Commons users would find both below ToO and De minimis (Link given from Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France#cite_note-Paradis-30). In all cases that is just my opinion but I think that french law is entirely irrelevant regarding potential issue with USA fictional characters. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Christian Ferrer above that this exceeds de minimis. The purpose of the photo is to show the series of books (as evidenced by the photo's use at da:Jumbobog), which unfortunately contain as their main element a copyrighted character. -M.nelson (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Cropping would not be usefull for the article on da:WP where the image is uses. --Ellywa (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
